Investing in Success: Key Strategies for Building Quality in After-School Programs

  • Jessica Sheldon
  • Amy Arbreton
  • Leigh Hopkins
  • Jean Baldwin Grossman
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper examines the relation between the implementation quality of after-school literacy activities and student reading gains. The data are from an evaluation of a multi-site after-school program in California in which continuous program quality improvement strategies were implemented to improve the delivery of a new balanced literacy program. Strategies included: (1) targeted staff training throughout the year, (2) regular observations and coaching of staff, and (3) the use of data to measure progress. Programs struggled to successfully implement these strategies early in the initiative, but gradually improved the quality and consistency of their use. Program quality, as measured through observations, also increased. Results suggested that the size of student reading gains were positively correlated with the quality of literacy programming provided by each instructor.

Keywords

After school Activity quality Continuous program improvement Literacy Reading gains 

References

  1. After School Program Excellence & Accountability Bill. California Senate Bill 638, 2006.Google Scholar
  2. Arbreton, A. J. A., Goldsmith, J., & Sheldon, J. (2005). Launching literacy in after-school programs: Early lessons from the CORAL initiative. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.Google Scholar
  3. Arbreton, A. J. A., Sheldon, J., Bradshaw, M., Goldsmith, J., Jucovy, L., & Pepper, S. (2008). Advancing achievement: Findings from an independent evaluation of a major after-school initiative. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.Google Scholar
  4. Blau, D. M. (1997). The production of quality in child care centers. Journal of Human Resources, 32, 354–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Britsch, B., Martin, N., Stuczynski, A., Tomala, B., & Tucci, P. (2005). Literacy in afterschool programs: Literature review. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
  6. Buher-Kane, J., Peter, N., Olitsky, S., & Kinnevy, S. (2006). Findings from five out-of-school time focus groups: Professional development preferences, experiences and recommendations for future planning. Journal of Youth Development, 1(2), Article 0602RS003. Retrieved November 14, 2007, from http://www.nae4ha.org/directory/jyd/jyd_article.aspx?id=856c67b2-3a76-428c-95c6-390edae5d1c2.
  7. Clarke-Stewart, K. A., Vandell, D. L., Burchinal, M., O’Brien, M., & McCartney, K. (2002). Do regulable features of child-care homes affect children’s development? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 52–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cummins, J. (2003). Reading and the bilingual student: Fact and friction. In Gt. Garcia (Ed.), English learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  9. Dennehy, J., & Noam, G. G. (2005). Evidence for action: Strengthening after-school programs for all children and youth: The Massachusetts out-of-school time workforce. A research report of Achieve Boston, an initiative of Boston After School & Beyond. Retrieved November 11, 2007, from http://www.niost.org/Evidence%20for%20%20Action.pdf
  10. DuBois, D. L., Neville, H. A., Parra, G. R., & Pugh-Lilly, A. O. (2002). Testing a new model of mentoring. New Directions for Youth Development, 93, 21–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dynarski, M., Moore, M., Mullens, J., Gleason, P., James-Burdumy, S., Rosenberg, L., et al. (2003). When schools stay open late: The national evaluation of the 21st century learning centers program, first year findings. Jessup, MD: Education Publications Center, US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  12. Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gee, J. P. (1999). Critical issues: Reading and the new literacy studies: Reframing the National Academy of Sciences report on reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 31, 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grossman, J., Campbell, M., & Raley, B. (2007). Quality time after school: What instructors can do to enhance learning. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.Google Scholar
  15. Halpern, R. (2005). Confronting the big lie: The need to reframe expectations of afterschool programs. New York: Partnership for After School Education.Google Scholar
  16. Hebbeler, K., Briggs, D., Contreras, G., Garza, N., Montgomery, J., Neufeld, S., et al. (2003). Implementation of communities organizing resources to advance learning (CORAL) in 2002–2003. Palo Alto, CA: SRI International.Google Scholar
  17. James-Burdumy, S., Dynarski, M., Moore, M., Dekke, J., Mansfield, W., Pistorino, C., et al. (2005). When schools stay open late: The national evaluation of the 21st century community learning centers program final report. Washington, DC: US Department of Education/Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE).Google Scholar
  18. Mahoney, J. L., Lord, H., & Carryl, E. (2005). An ecological analysis of after-school program participation and the development of academic performance and motivational attributes for disadvantaged children. Child Development, 76, 811–825.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Mahoney, J. L., Parente, M. E., & Lord, H. (2007). Program-level differences in afterschool program engagement: Links to child competence, program quality and content. The Elementary School Journal, 107, 385–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller, B. M. (2005). Pathways to success for youth: What counts in after-school. Massachusetts after-school research study (MARS) report. Wellesley, MA: National Institute for Out-of-School Time.Google Scholar
  21. Miller, B. M., Brigham, R., & Perea, F. (2006). Afterschool literacy coaching initiative of Boston: Final evaluation report. Boston: Massachusetts 2020.Google Scholar
  22. National After School Association. (2006). Understanding the afterschool workforce: Opportunities and challenges for an emerging profession. Houston, TX: Cornerstones for Kids.Google Scholar
  23. Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform.Google Scholar
  24. No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). (2007). http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/no-child-letf-behind.html#1. Retrieved August 26, 2007.
  25. Poglinco, S. M., Bach, A., Hovde, K., Rosenblum, S., Saunders, M., & Supovitz, J. (2003). The heart of the matter: The coaching model in America’s choice schools. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education.Google Scholar
  26. Reisner, E. R., White, R. N., Russell, C. A., & Birmingham, J. (2004). Building quality, scale and effectiveness in after-school programs. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Russo, A. (2004). School-based coaching: A revolution in professional development—Or just the latest fad? Harvard Education Letter, 20, 1–4.Google Scholar
  28. Ryan, L. M., Foster, M. L., & Cohen, J. (2002). Enhancing literacy support in after-school programs. Boston: Boston Plan for Excellence. Retrieved December 7, 2007, from http://www.pearweb.org/research/pdfs/5%20-%20enhancing.pdf.
  29. Spielberger, J., & Halpern, R. (2002). The role of after-school programs in children’s literacy development. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children.Google Scholar
  30. Vandell, D., Reisner, E., & Pierce, K. (2007). Outcomes linked to high-quality afterschool programs: Longitudinal findings from the study of promising afterschool programs. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Community Research and Action 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica Sheldon
    • 1
  • Amy Arbreton
    • 1
  • Leigh Hopkins
    • 1
  • Jean Baldwin Grossman
    • 1
  1. 1.Public/Private VenturesOaklandUSA

Personalised recommendations